Intellectual peers

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it funny how black and white grown adults can be when arguing on this forum. Yes, it's true you can get a quality education at a large state school just as you can get at an Ivy/T20. But it is also true that the academic quality of your peers is going to be universally higher at the T20. I went to a state school and I worked my butt off and got an amazing education with some great opportunities, and had some very smart peers. But the general quality of my peers and what they've accomplished nowhere compares to my son's ivy league peer group. Does that make one experience objectively better than the other in every way? No, of course not.

I think that I generally agree with this but limiting this to the T20 is insufficient.

But what I absolutely do not agree with is the idea that outside of about 10 schools the peer group is significantly different. Those 10 schools aren't uniquely special and in a group of their own in terms of peer group. They are part of a group of about 25-30 universities and about 12-15 SLACs which all have student populations whose profiles mostly overlap and any assertion that any one of these campuses provides an environment that is significantly different than any of the others in terms of intellectual peers is just nonsense.

Top 5 SLACs are much better and have superior outcomes to the ransoms in rank 12-15

True and about 14-15 unis that are significantly different from the next 15-16. When you have one at a university ranked close to 30 and one ranked in T10 the differences in peers are evident. The pre-TO scores in these two groups typically tell the same tale: over 75% of students at the top unis are parallel to the top 20-25% of the lower unis.

So you’re admitting that these students can be found everywhere.

No one is arguing that the students at the top universities aren’t more “top” than at other universities. They’re pointing out that obsessing over the difference in peer group amongst schools that are all good and have strong students is misguided.

DP
Actually for students who are well within top 25% of the TOP schools, it would be a fairly low percentage of the lesser schools that were true intellectual peers to push them. For the median ivy kid does it matter a ton to be at a top 10 where you are average vs a 25/30 where you are top quarter, maybe or maybe not depending on personality. But it matters a lot to those who are the top10-15% of the ivy kids. They would have very few intellectual peers and be an outlier at a 25-30ish. Many of those kids did that already in Magnet high schools where the median SAT was 1430 and they had less than a handful of peers they could relate to intellectually. These kids exist I know several from different magnets or top privates. They are a significant percentage of them at top schools and it is genuinely refreshing to see them finally have so many that are similar, and finally meet a few who are beyond them—still outliers in the most competitive setting.

Well, no, if you’re top 10-15% at an Ivy you aren’t really amongst your peers there either. But we aren’t talking about outliers. Those outliers are always going to struggle to find peers regardless.

The top 10-15 % of ivy kids do find their peers there, because they are close enough to the median to relate well to most of the top half! That is the point. If you have a couple of these kids and /or were one yourself it would make sense. It is like coming home to finally relate to a large portion of peers. The top 2-3 brightest from the magnet almost always go to ivy/stanford/Mit. We know a lot of these parents well and our own kids were that way. These kids are not that rare and DCUM likely skews toward having overrepresentation of them. I heard about this from a fellow top kid parent. Our kids did competitive orchestra and JHU CTY camps together. This website used to be great for the super bright but lately anyone who wants the right fit is told State publics are the same, All schools are the same. They just are not. And the differences are very important to a lot of kids at the top.

Neither competitive orchestra or JHU CTY are indicators of being so intelligent you wouldn’t be serviced well by a state university. These students are very rare, and often end up in PhD programs with top fellowships. A majority of Ivy League students would’ve been challenged at a state flagship.

[Anonymous]

Well, no, if you’re top 10-15% at an Ivy you aren’t really amongst your peers there either. But we aren’t talking about outliers. Those outliers are always going to struggle to find peers regardless.


Funny how DCUM is only comprised of these tippy too kids! While this may be true, the problem is everyone thinking that THEIR kid is so special to need this peer grouo when tge reality is for most kids, even most ivy kids, it doesn’t matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do people on this forum really think their snowflakes can’t be intellectually stimulated at “non-selective” schools??

First of all - there will be plenty of smart kids basically anywhere and people can find their tribe. Second of all - what about being able to function in the real world, in the workplace where people have all different strengths and skills. Sometimes an average student can be brilliant socially or politically or just “get” geospatial thinking. It would be a sad world if only good test takers prevailed across the board.

I hope my kid finds the school that meets their needs academically, socially and culturally and I don’t need artificial selectivity metrics to tell me what that is.

For some, they were not challenged much by their high school, even great privates with median SAT of 1400 do not challenge the very top kids as much as a college that has a median SAT (pre-TO) of 1500. Super-bright always >99%ile their whole lives type kids often need a larger cohort of similar peers to reach their full potential. T15/ivy types/williams/et al have challenging coursework above and beyond what T75 type schools can offer because they have a large cohort of students who can move at a faster pace rather than less than 5% who can. Ask professors who have worked at various levels of college: they will tell you there are significant differences. We have asked our family:
One studied through phD at a T10, then taught post doc at T20, saw no significant difference. Then taught at various T60-100 places and it was stark: lack of motivation, even the smart kids were bored, they had to have a certain % pass so they watered it down. The other ran an engineering lab as a professor at a T50 public then moved it all to an HYPSM. They have the same descriptions: had to slow the pace at the lesser school, were surprised at the high volume of intensely academic students at the top place they moved to.
Both professors have noted the pressure among undergrads is much higher at the top, warning us to consider whether ours would be ok emotionally not being the top kid in almost everything as they had been for all of their schooling. Intellectual stimulation from the brightest peers comes with increased motivation and growth, but also increased pressure. You have to take the good with the bad if you choose an ivy/elite.

Paragraphs: use them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s overrated. A lot of the insanely intelligent types of students go to public university, breeze through at the beginning and then challenge themselves in grad courses.

This is the answer.

The highest intelligent ones would be better off feeling some sort of challenge as undergrads, get to grad level course as juniors(not that uncommon at top schools for a lot of students to be ready) and really explore some complex subjects in depth as an undergrad. That would be a much better use of that levelof brain. Besides, who wants to pay for their kid to “breeze through?” That is not the point of college. It should challenge them.

Going to a top school doesn’t guarantee that. I know a kid who breezed through CMU for CS and now works quant; he could’ve gone anywhere and been fine with the challenge. Some people just are intelligent.

+1. In fact, a lot of flagships would take a kid like this and allow them to test out or get lots of pre-college credit and then move quickly into grad-level classes. This has to be weighed against going to a more competitive school where it is often harder to do this, though the quality and rigor of the undergrad coursework is likely higher than the undergrad courses at the flagship and there are more super smart kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Funny how DCUM is only comprised of these tippy too kids! While this may be true, the problem is everyone thinking that THEIR kid is so special to need this peer grouo when tge reality is for most kids, even most ivy kids, it doesn’t matter.

Yeah and the funny thing about it is that if your kid is really that uniquely brilliant, peer group is hardly the biggest concern. You need to be looking at where your kid can have access to grad courses, grad students (who are actually closer to peers), and professors who will give individualized attention. Places with unique programs for those few academic superstars who are likely to end up with PhDs and make a big impact in their field. Undoubtedly a lot of this is at the very top schools—though not exclusively—but focusing on peer group for a kid that is so above and beyond everyone else is secondary.

[Anonymous]

I don’t find a lot of the ivy students and other top college students that impressive academically these days. They’re amazing networkers and tend to dominate in terms of Social EQ, but raw intelligence hasn’t been an assessment of admissions for decades.

I’m not saying they aren’t intelligent, just that this idea that the top colleges hold onto pure geniuses is a bit…dramatic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it funny how black and white grown adults can be when arguing on this forum. Yes, it's true you can get a quality education at a large state school just as you can get at an Ivy/T20. But it is also true that the academic quality of your peers is going to be universally higher at the T20. I went to a state school and I worked my butt off and got an amazing education with some great opportunities, and had some very smart peers. But the general quality of my peers and what they've accomplished nowhere compares to my son's ivy league peer group. Does that make one experience objectively better than the other in every way? No, of course not.

I think that I generally agree with this but limiting this to the T20 is insufficient.

But what I absolutely do not agree with is the idea that outside of about 10 schools the peer group is significantly different. Those 10 schools aren't uniquely special and in a group of their own in terms of peer group. They are part of a group of about 25-30 universities and about 12-15 SLACs which all have student populations whose profiles mostly overlap and any assertion that any one of these campuses provides an environment that is significantly different than any of the others in terms of intellectual peers is just nonsense.

it may be more than 10 where the noticeable drop is, but it is not 25-30 unis and 10-15 LACs before the gap

I haven’t studied the latest ranking, but it’s about 15 or so in my humble opinion.

+1
This thread is a lot of copium

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s overrated. A lot of the insanely intelligent types of students go to public university, breeze through at the beginning and then challenge themselves in grad courses.

This is the answer.

Why would you want your kid to breeze through?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s overrated. A lot of the insanely intelligent types of students go to public university, breeze through at the beginning and then challenge themselves in grad courses.

This is the answer.

Why would you want your kid to breeze through?

Many brilliant kids would rather breeze through a prerec or two than spend high school curating a fake story about whatever fashionable nonsense AOs want these days. There’s no third option where you can just be brilliant and driven and get into an elite college on the strength of that alone. Schools that practice “holistic admissions” are openly hostile to kids like that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s overrated. A lot of the insanely intelligent types of students go to public university, breeze through at the beginning and then challenge themselves in grad courses.

This is the answer.

Why would you want your kid to breeze through?

Many brilliant kids would rather breeze through a prerec or two than spend high school curating a fake story about whatever fashionable nonsense AOs want these days. There’s no third option where you can just be brilliant and driven and get into an elite college on the strength of that alone. Schools that practice “holistic admissions” are openly hostile to kids like that.

Brilliant kids aren’t taking pre-recs regardless of where they go.

Stop using terms like “brilliant” or “genius” when you really just mean the average smart kid.

Brilliant kids at public colleges often start as sophomores or higher because of all their AP credits or placement test scores.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t find a lot of the ivy students and other top college students that impressive academically these days. They’re amazing networkers and tend to dominate in terms of Social EQ, but raw intelligence hasn’t been an assessment of admissions for decades.

I’m not saying they aren’t intelligent, just that this idea that the top colleges hold onto pure geniuses is a bit…dramatic.

+1, this isn’t Oxford.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t find a lot of the ivy students and other top college students that impressive academically these days. They’re amazing networkers and tend to dominate in terms of Social EQ, but raw intelligence hasn’t been an assessment of admissions for decades.

I’m not saying they aren’t intelligent, just that this idea that the top colleges hold onto pure geniuses is a bit…dramatic.

It’s funny how this is said and also that they are all robots with no social IQ. Everyone just generalizes to say whatever they want to minimize them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it funny how black and white grown adults can be when arguing on this forum. Yes, it's true you can get a quality education at a large state school just as you can get at an Ivy/T20. But it is also true that the academic quality of your peers is going to be universally higher at the T20. I went to a state school and I worked my butt off and got an amazing education with some great opportunities, and had some very smart peers. But the general quality of my peers and what they've accomplished nowhere compares to my son's ivy league peer group. Does that make one experience objectively better than the other in every way? No, of course not.

I think that I generally agree with this but limiting this to the T20 is insufficient.

But what I absolutely do not agree with is the idea that outside of about 10 schools the peer group is significantly different. Those 10 schools aren't uniquely special and in a group of their own in terms of peer group. They are part of a group of about 25-30 universities and about 12-15 SLACs which all have student populations whose profiles mostly overlap and any assertion that any one of these campuses provides an environment that is significantly different than any of the others in terms of intellectual peers is just nonsense.

it may be more than 10 where the noticeable drop is, but it is not 25-30 unis and 10-15 LACs before the gap

I haven’t studied the latest ranking, but it’s about 15 or so in my humble opinion.

+1
This thread is a lot of copium

Anyone that actually knows and has direct experience would agree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t find a lot of the ivy students and other top college students that impressive academically these days. They’re amazing networkers and tend to dominate in terms of Social EQ, but raw intelligence hasn’t been an assessment of admissions for decades.

I’m not saying they aren’t intelligent, just that this idea that the top colleges hold onto pure geniuses is a bit…dramatic.

It’s funny how this is said and also that they are all robots with no social IQ. Everyone just generalizes to say whatever they want to minimize them.

Yeah but I didnt say that. I don’t see how anyone could genuinely believe their robots with no social skills. Ivies are basically pre-consulting/pre-IB camps these days, so it’s a ridiculous claim.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s overrated. A lot of the insanely intelligent types of students go to public university, breeze through at the beginning and then challenge themselves in grad courses.

This is the answer.

Why would you want your kid to breeze through?

Many brilliant kids would rather breeze through a prerec or two than spend high school curating a fake story about whatever fashionable nonsense AOs want these days. There’s no third option where you can just be brilliant and driven and get into an elite college on the strength of that alone. Schools that practice “holistic admissions” are openly hostile to kids like that.

Brilliant kids aren’t taking pre-recs regardless of where they go.

Stop using terms like “brilliant” or “genius” when you really just mean the average smart kid.

Brilliant kids at public colleges often start as sophomores or higher because of all their AP credits or placement test scores.

Starting as sophomore or higher is regular UMC. The first year of college is remedial high school.